C-44 may be the right thing to do — but it’s not the only thing

Steve Sullivan was Canada’s first Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime and has been advocating for victims for almost 20 years. He is currently the Executive Director of Ottawa Victim Services and is Part-Time Professor at Algonquin College in the Victimology Graduate Certificate Program. He was the former President of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime and testified before numerous Parliamentary Committees on victims’ rights, justice reform and public safety issues. His views are personal and are not intended to represent those of any organization with which he is affiliated.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities is studying Bill C-44, the Helping Families in Need Act. This well-intentioned bill will amend the Canada Labour Code to allow parents of murdered or missing children up to 104 weeks of unpaid leave without fear of losing their jobs (the bill also deals with parents of critically ill children).

In addition to Bill C-44, the government also has announced there will be a new grant to provide $350 per week, for up to 35 weeks, to parents of murdered or missing children who were under age 18 and whose deaths or disappearances are thought to be the result of a criminal offence.

It is hard to argue against Bill C-44 or the benefits that some families may receive. Certainly none of the members of the committee have, nor have any of the witnesses so far. But before the bill is rubber-stamped by all parties, shouldn’t someone ask some tough questions about how much this will cost and whether it is the best use of our scarce resources, one that will benefit the largest number of people whose lives are affected by crime?

Bill C-44 will not help the overwhelming majority of crime victims and it won’t even help most families of homicide victims. First, it only deals with parents of murdered children (and presumably parents of children killed by impaired driving and other crimes, although the government appears able to exclude any offences in the regulations).

Statistics Canada reported that 61 children under the age of 18 were murdered in 2010, most often by a parent. According to MADD Canada, approximately 120 children aged 19 and under were killed in impaired driving crashes in 2009. In that same year, the RCMP reports, there were 237 reported parental abductions and 50 reported stranger abductions. Sixty percent of these reports were removed from CPIC within 24 hours and 85 per cent were removed within a week.

In her testimony before the committee, Labour Minister Raitt said, “In the federal jurisdiction, we’re only looking at numbers of approximately 75 for murdered or missing children — 75 employers across the country, that’s it.” It is also unclear how many families would be able to afford to take 104 weeks off without pay, even with the $350 income support.

Bill C-44, therefore, will not affect most employed parents. Nor will it affect those who were unemployed at the time of the death or disappearance, or people who cannot work, or stay-at-home parents. Some of these people may be among the most vulnerable — but Bill C-44 will not help them.

The government estimates about 1,000 people will be eligible for the income support. If this number is accurate and everyone who is eligible takes advantage of it, it will cost over $12 million dollars. Some might argue that’s not a lot of money. But in 2011, the entire Federal Victim Strategy, to “give victims a more effective voice in the criminal justice system,” was only $13 million. In other words, the government is almost doubling its commitment to victims of crime but only helping a small minority of victims.

Of course supporting grieving parents is “the right thing to do”. Why, then, has the government chosen to support some grieving parents but not others? Would supporting grieving spouses and siblings somehow be the wrong thing to do? What about supporting the parents of a 17-year old who was murdered because of his affiliation with a gang? His parents may be excluded by the bill — does that mean supporting those parents would be wrong?

The government might say they simply cannot afford to help everyone so they had to make some tough choices. Fair enough — but if we have to make tough choices because we can’t help everyone, it is very important we make sure scarce resources are used in the best way because there are a lot of “right things” that we simply cannot do.

Committee members from all sides of the House should be asking what evidence the government has that this bill addresses the most important need that crime victims have. How many frontline victim service providers have been consulted in drafting this legislation? It does not appear many have been invited to give evidence. Many of those who work with victims of crime every day might identify a variety of essential needs not reflected in Bill C-44. In its 2008-2009 report, the Office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime wrote, “During the course of its work, the OFOVC has found that while employment is an important issue, the ability to work is not among the most common complaints the Office received.”

The committee may decide, after asking these questions, that Bill C-44 is the right way to go — that this is the best possible way to spend $12 million. But the committee is poised to rubber-stamp the bill without asking any tough questions. No one seriously expects government members to ask substantial questions of their own ministers — but we do expect it from opposition members. Sadly, most are too fearful of government attacks (flooding BlackBerry in-boxes is apparently the new tactic) for the offence of failing to support victims.

And the committee has chosen not to hear from any witnesses who might propose a different point of view, or at least a different vision of how $12 million could be spent to help victims of crime. So far, the witnesses all support the bill and are asking are whether the bill goes far enough rather than questioning the bill itself. A valid point of view, to be sure, but there may be others.

It’s easy to say this bill is the right thing to do. Helping families of homicide victims who are financially disadvantaged already is also the right thing to do. Helping women escape abusive relationships without fear of poverty is also the right thing to do. Helping rescue kids on the street who are trading sex for food is also the right thing to do. Bill C-44 does nothing to support these victims, so is the bill the right thing or just one of many potential right things?

Wanting to do right by those who lives have been touched by crime is admirable, but governing requires more than just blindly endorsing anything that mentions victims of crime. Uncomfortable and unpopular questions need to be asked because there are a lot of people in need and limited resources to go around. No single initiative is going to help every victim, so we need to have an open and frank discussion about which initiatives actually merit such a significant financial investment in this economic climate.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.